Obama, Presidential Race

Reuters: Obama wades into 2008 White House race

So, Obama has finally entered the race. He has a lot of support right now, along with McCain on the Republican side. It doesn’t matter yet.

First of all, candidate’s opinions haven’t been totally expressed yet. Most of the candidates are at least partially running on personality (Obama). And even their true personalities don’t come out except under situations where they think no one is watching (“Macaca” moment).

Secondly, candidates haven’t had the chance to mess up yet. The prime example, of course, is Howard Dean.

But most importantly, situations will change. Especially Iraq. McCain has been a prime proponent of the surge in Iraq. If this fails, it will probably send him to the bottom of the polls. If it works wonderfully, his popularity will skyrocket. That’s just an example. Something big could happen, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, another Israeli war, perhaps this time with Syria or Iran rather than Hezbollah. Would the election be the same? Of course not.

Surplus? Since When?

Iran, China exploit U.S. military surplus supermarket
Since when has there been surplus? Wasn't the Army and Marines requesting more money to repair equipment?

Surge in Diplomacy

Finally! An article about the surge. (Sorry how long it took.)

Courtesy Boston Globe

Take a look at this comparison of Bush’s plan and the Iraq Study Group’s report. Analyze it. Don’t over analyze it. What do you notice? Most of Bush’s plan does NOT do what the Study Group recommends. Bush plans an increase in troops in Iraq. The report says “We do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence.” Bush didn’t propose direct talks with Iran or Syria. The report says a “new diplomatic offensive … should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them.”

This doesn’t mean a surge is the wrong thing to do. The Iraq Study Group is not God, and the Iraq Study Group Report the Bible/Quran/Torah/etc. The report says don’t withdraw right away, or stay the course, or increase the number of troops, or divide the country into different regions. It doesn’t say what to do with the troops right now. It says staying the course is unacceptable, but what is supposed to be done militarily? It doesn’t say.

The level of troops should remain the same. The diplomacy and what the troops are doing is what should be done differently. Valiant coalition forces should play a supporting role to the Iraqi army and police, and should help rebuild communities in Iraq, unlike what former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld believed. President Bush should begin talks with Iran, Syria, and other Middle Eastern countries. Diplomacy is where the Iraq Study Group’s report should be referenced.

For now, with the surge already beginning, we’ll just have to be optimistic and hopeful. But diplomatic action can still be taken. It needs to be taken.

Not Again...

Botched hanging in Iraq arouses Arab suspicions

Déjà vu anybody?

Iran War?

The American people, and I assume the Congress, expect the president to do what is necessary to protect our forces.

-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in response to if she believes the president has constitutional authority to pursue across the border into Iran or Syria

Glenn Greenwald recently published an article about the expansion of the Iraq war, and how it’s leading to a war with Iran. The Iranians detained recently, how Iran is supplying terrorists in Iraq, how the U.S. is going to stop the supplying (“We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria”), etc. are some of the reasons he gives to support that Bush is preparing for a war. All of that is true, but does not mean that there will be a war. Maybe Bush is just getting more confrontational. Also, his article states that the Iranians who were “kidnapped” were “kidnapped” out of the Iranian embassy. They weren’t. They were detained from a consulate, which is a lesser form of an embassy, but isn’t an embassy. All of this true, there will be no war. The key reason there won’t be a war yet is that the army is stretched too thin. Even with the proposed enlargement, it will be at least a couple of years before the expansion is complete. Unless Iran outright attacks the U.S. and claims responsibility, instead of just supplying weapons, there will be no war.

Upgrade!

Upgraded blog :)

American Embassy in Greece Attack

Via CNN: Leftist Group Claims Responsibility for Attacks on the American Embassy in Greece

At least there were no casualties. A group called the Revolutionary Struggle has claimed responsibility. They say they are the heir to November 17, a Marxist terrorist group. N17, as they were sometimes called, disliked the U.S. backed military government in Greece. But unlike in N17's time, Greece is ruled by a democratic government. Their problem is with America, and "American Globalization." Ironically, the only thing the U.S. is exporting nowadays is democracy, not any products. They have a problem with saying how their ruled?

Who Voted Against Minimum Wage Increase?

Via CNN: The Democratic-controlled House votes 315-116 to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Who voted against it and why? That's a really good way for politicians to get votes...Except from big company execs

E-mail to the Cafferty File

This is actually yesterday's 5:00 Cafferty File question. Posting was temporarily down yesterday.
************************************************

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
Should the United States launch attacks on al Qaeda members in Somalia?

If given permission by Somalia and the U.S. has sufficient intel on where the terrorists are, attacks should be carried out. Not only does it show U.S. power in region, it shows that America can still exert its influence when it needs to. Still, it must be carrid out with exact precision; The United States does NOT need another war on its hands.

U.S. Bombs Al-Qaeda Militants in Somalia

U.S. Bombs Al-Qaeda Militants in Somalia
Good, or bad?

Good:

• Al Qaeda militants possibly dead
• Shows U.S. influence and capability in the region and world
  

Bad:

• The U.S. does NOT need another war on its hands
• There will most likely be some civilian casualties, leading to calls for Jihad
  

E-mail to the Cafferty File

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 4:00 question, and a response.
------------------------------------------------------------
A top U.S. commander in Iraq says it might take another "two or three years" to gain the upper hand in the war. Are you willing to wait that long?

To put it simply: yes. If anything can be salvaged from this disastrously handled war, three years doesn't seem that long. Lebanon is being over run by Hezbollah; without it, democracy will deteriorate even more quickly than it is now (no thanks to the Iraq war). And, as the general said, if the American people have hope, they will be more supportive of the war.

Troop Surge?

This week, President Bush is expected to announce a new policy of a surge of troops in Iraq. Not agreeing with or disagreeing with, if this is his plan, there are some things Bush has to realize. If he does do this, and only if he does do this, he can't just send in a couple thousand troops. He has to send in a lot. 25,000 to 30,000 would be best. And it has to be sustainable. If this goes on for only six months, and then the number of troops is reduced to the current number, the only success will be weakening Iraq’s forces. That’s different then if after six months U.S. forces begin to withdraw all troops. That would be a complete change of course. Sustainable and many. If the Bush Administration chooses a troop surge, they are key.

Nuclear Strike on Iran?

The Sunday Times Reports Israel is Making Plans for a Strike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities, If Necessary

The First 100 Hours

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi and her top aides have outlined a full agenda for Democrats' first 100 legislative hours in power, starting after members of the 110th Congress are sworn in today. Pelosi has vowed to complete work on those items before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.

Today and tomorrow

Ethics and lobbying reform, including ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbying organizations, and a requirement that all privately funded travel be pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee.

Earmark reform, including a requirement that House members publicly acknowledge special projects they are seeking.

"Pay-as-you-go" budgeting, requiring any increase in spending to be offset with a revenue enhancement or budget cut.

Week of Jan. 8

Enact 9/11 Commission recommendations, including enhanced cargo screening and ensuring better communication among first responders to emergencies.

Increase the federal minimum wage, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

Expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, overriding the president's restrictions on such funding.

Permit Medicare to negotiate with drug companies, to bring potentially lower prices to program participants.

Week of Jan. 15

Cut student loan interest rates in half.

Repeal tax cuts for big oil companies, to create a pool to fund renewable energy initiatives.

Hussein's Execution

There wasn't enough time to publish the article on Saddam's execution before the execution, especially because it was still during the holidays. So instead of typing up a long version of the opinion, here's a short version. Of course, the ex-dictator has already been executed, so the article is almost pointless to read, but...
---------------------------------------------------------------

If the death of Saddam Hussein was the birth of a new Iraq, then Iraq was born premature. Let's make this clear: Iraqi courts ruled Hussein should be executed for his crimes in Dujail, so when the time is right, Saddam should be executed. The time wasn't right. Hussein wasn't convicted for and didn't even start the trial for some of his worst crimes, such as the murders of over 100,000 Kurds. Everyone effected in some way by his cruelness is probably still happy about his death, but wouldn't you be a bit happier if you knew that the Iraqi courts recognized the slaughter of your family and friends?

Happy Birthday

A provocative question for (imaginary) readers: Shouldn't Happy Birthday be sung on Christmas?

Looking Back

Often, especially when referring to the Iraq War, many politicians say something along the lines of "Knowing what I know now…" and then make an excuse for voting for the Iraq war or agreeing with it. This is an unacceptable excuse. Knowing what the U.S. knows now, would they still have dropped a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Would they fight in Vietnam? You can't look back on what you did and say, "Knowing what I know now, knowing how it turned out, I wouldn't have done that." That is just a pathetic excuse. Saying, "Thinking back, even only knowing what I knew then, I regret making that decision," makes perfect sense because you're realizing you should have realized then it was a bad decision. Judging people in the past also has to be done carefully. Before judging, think about the time period and what the people thought and believed.

Taken from BBC

The fading of the dream has led to a falling-out among the neo-conservatives themselves.

In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been on a Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.

In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."

Dead Soldier's Idea

Dead Soldier Spells Out Iraq Solution...With Stick Figures
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/how_to_win_in_anbar_v4.pdf

Illegal Immigration starts with Economics

Once upon a time, in a not-so-far off land called North America, there were two neighboring cities. Usa and Mex were their names, and the river Immigration ran strong through them. The native citizens of Usa did not like this river running through their town; they even have an ordinance against rivers running through the city, but because of many different complicated reasons, this ordinance wasn’t enforced. Mex was happy just to have all of that water out of their town because it wasn’t doing any good there. The council of Usa decided something had to be done. They came up with a plan. They convinced Mex to build a dam in the river to block most of Immigration River. In exchange, Mex would get a wheel from the town of Usa that would provide hydroelectric power. To finish the job, Usa would build another dam on the edge of Usa to stop the trickle of Immigration River that could get through Mex’s dam. Everyone lived happily ever after.

Sound familiar? It should. This represents the illegal immigration problem the United States is currently facing. It also represents what could be happening to end the dilemma. If the United States (Usa) could provide support (hydroelectric wheel) to the Mexican poor (Mex represented Mexico) and demolish the crime and drug lords, everyone’s happy (first dam built). With jobs and a better life, fewer immigrants (Immigrant River) would sneak into the country. Then Washington could worry about the problem back in their territory (the second dam). Ending immigration starts with the first step of aiding the poor and needy in Mexico.

Excerpts from Rumsfeld's Parting Memo

These are some of the possible options soon-to-be former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined in a classified memo to President Bush for "a major adjustment" in Iraq.

Significantly boost the number of US trainers and transfer more equipment to the Iraqi security forces.

Decrease quickly the number of US bases, now 55, to five by July 2007.

Provide US security only in cities or provinces that actively cooperate.

Focus reconstruction "in those parts of Iraq that are behaving . . . No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

Place substantial US forces near the borders with Syria and Iran to reduce infiltration and reduce Iran's influence.

Withdraw US forces from vulnerable positions, such as patrols, and use them as a quick-reaction force to assist Iraqi security forces when needed.

Begin modest withdrawals of US and coalition forces to encourage the Iraqi government to take charge.

Provide money to political and religious leaders "to get them to help us through this difficult period."

Announce that the United States is trying out a new approach, which would allow further adjustments, if necessary.

Source: Boston Globe

Interesting, especially after the Iraq Study Group came out with its report.